K.R.J. SARMA v. R.V. SURYA RAO AND ANR. INSC 368

NAME OF CASE GOPALANACHARI V. STATE OF KERALA INSC 215; AIR 1981 SC 674; 1981 SCR 1271

FACTS In a letter the petitioner complained that he had been illegally detained under section 110, Cr. P. C. The Court in turn was sent a notice bu the Superintendent of Sub-Jail stating that the petitioner was "a well-known habitual prisoner” of the region and was called as "thief Gopalan". The detenu stated that he was unable to see or hear because of his extreme old age of 71 years he stayed in his house in his native place and one night a policeman took him from his house in a van to the police station stating that he had to inquire something from him and after putting him in the lock up for 10 days produced him before the Court as a person having been arrested the previous night. He further mentioned that the charge against him was that on the night patrol one night a policeman found him hiding in a veranda of a shop and that on being asked his name and address he gave one name first and another name a little later and that on inquiry it was found that he was an ex-criminal not to be let free.

ISSUE Whether the detention of the petitioner was constitutionally valid?

HOLDING No, because the constitutional survival of section 110 depends on its obedience to Art. 21. Words of wide import, vague amplitude such as "by habit a robber", "by habit a receiver of stolen property", "habitually protects or harbours thieves" and far too generalised to be safe in the hands of the Police cannot be constitutionalised in the context of Art. 21 unless read down to be as a fair and reasonable legislation with reverence for human rights.

RATIONALE Section 110 cannot be used to discriminate or harass the less privelleged and the have-nots as it did under British raj because today to be poor is not a crime in this country. Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Vague Expressions like those as mentioned cannot be flung in the face of a man and The Court must insist on specificity of facts keeping in mind article 21 of the constitution.